more businesses being 10 years or younger. The …...Science for Conservation 309 41 more businesses...

41Science for Conservation 309

more businesses being 10 years or younger. The majority of FNP businesses

studied were over 10 years old, with the oldest business being 63. Half of the

businesses over 10 years old were in the 10–20 year bracket.

Half of the TNP businesses studied were still in original ownership, three had

changed owner in the previous 10 years, and one had changed ownership in

the previous 2 years. The majority (14) of FNP businesses studied were still in

original ownership.

Eleven of the 14 TNP business

owners lived in the Taupo–

Ruapehu region, including

four operators based in

the gateway community

of National Park Village

(Table 9). ATNP operators

were predominantly based

in the Nelson–Tasman

region, including three

operators based in the

gateway community of

Marahau. The majority of

FNP business owners lived in

the gateway communities of

Te Anau (13) and Manapouri (3); two FNP interviewees were based in

Queenstown.

Interviewees expressed several reasons for working in the tourism industry.

When asked to identify the main reason, operators identified ‘the industry itself’,

‘customers’ and ‘being able to live in the area’ as some of the main reasons

(Fig. 2).

TAblE 9. PRINcIPAl PlAcE oF REsIdENcE

oF THE coNcEssIoNAIREs INTERVIEWEd IN

2004/05 oPERATINg IN ToNgARIRo NATIoNAl

PARk (TNP), AbEl TAsMAN NATIoNAl PARk

(ATNP) ANd FIoRdlANd NATIoNAl PARk (FNP).

NuMbER

locATIoN TNP ATNP FNP

In the region 11 9 16

In the gateway community 4 3 16

Elsewhere in New Zealand 2 1 2

Internationally 1 0 0

Total 14 10 18

Figure 2. Main reasons given for being in the tourism

industry by concessionaires operating in Tongariro

National Park (TNP), Abel Tasman National Park (ATNP)

and Fiordland National Park (FNP) interviewed in

2004/05.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Create jobs Industryitself

Way of living Customers Being ableto live in

area

Other Notspecified

Main reason

Num

ber

TNPATNPFNP

sfc309.pdf

42 Wouters—Socio-economic effects of concession-based tourism

FeATuRe TNP ATNP FNP

Business maturity Old and established young Old and established

Ownership Stable Recent changes to ownership Very stable

Majority are owner-operated Majority are owner-operated Majority are owner-operated

Business size Very small to very large Generally small to medium, but Very small to very large

recent arrival of large business

Concession holder location In the region In the region In the gateway community

Product type Accommodation, guided Guided kayaking Accommodation, attraction,

walking, ski field and transport guided activities (all),

transport (air, land and water)

Season of operation Winter and summer Summer Summer

TABLe 10. COMPARISON OF BuSINeSS CHARACTeRISTICS (OF THOSe OPeRATORS INTeRVIeWeD IN 2004/05)

IN TONGARIRO NATIONAL PARK (TNP), ABeL TASMAN NATIONAL PARK (ATNP) AND FIORDLAND NATIONAL

PARK (FNP).

Half of the TNP and ATNP operators interviewed had worked in the tourism

industry prior to their current position, while the majority of FNP operators

had not. About half of all interviewees had worked in their respective region

previously.

All TNP operators interviewed operated year round. Six of the 14 businesses

did not have a specific high season for their total tourism product, while for

four operators summer was the high season and for three winter was the high

season. For the ATNP operators interviewed, summer was the high season, and

all but one operated year round. Fifteen FNP operators considered summer to

be their high season, and two operators did not have a specific high season for

tourism products.

Table 10 summarises the characteristics of the concessioned tourism activity in

each of the parks, based on data from the operator interviews.


6. Direct and total economic effects of concessions

The direct economic impact of the concessions in each park, in terms of

employment, turnover, value added and household income, was estimated using

data from the operator interviews. The total impact of these concessions on the

district was then estimated using the method outlined in section 3.3. The total

changes in direct visitor spending in the district(s) as a result of the concessions’

existence is also estimated, in addition to the total net level of district economic

activity that was generated by the concessions and that would not have existed in

their absence. Where concession holders were involved in a mix of concessioned

and non-concessioned activities, only that proportion of activities that related

to their concessions was included. The estimates represent the concessionaires

operating in the respective national park who were also based in the relevant

region.

6 . 1 B u S I N e S S T u R N O V e R A N D e M P L O y M e N T

In TNP, annual turnover (i.e. output) generated by

concessioned activity was about $30 million (Table 11).

Four of the 14 operators interviewed relied completely

on the concessioned product, whilst for a further five

operators the concessioned products represented 10% or

less of their total turnover. In the quiet season, however,

six operators spent no time on the concessioned product

(transport and guiding). The majority of the businesses

were able to draw salaries.

In ATNP, annual turnover for the concessioned product

was about $4.6 million (Table 11). Of the ten operators

interviewed, one relied completely on the concessioned

product and, until their recent change in ownership

(becoming part of much larger enterprise), three

kayaking companies also relied entirely on the concessioned product for turnover.

Three of the business owners interviewed were unable to take drawings from

their businesses.

In FNP, the concessioned product generated an annual turnover of about

$51 million (Table 11). Ten of the 18 operators interviewed relied completely on

the concessioned product.

The total employment generated by the concession operators in TNP was

450 FTe staff (Table 11). As mentioned in section 4.1, the park has traditionally

been a winter destination, and this seasonality was reflected in operator

employment. Low season employment was about one-fifth of the annual number

of FTes, although this differed between concession types. The ski field was by

far the largest employer and, per year, employed about 750 people. Over the

TNP ATNP FNP

Output ($million/year) 30.0* 4.6 51.0

employment (FTe) 450† 53 320

TABLe 11. DIReCT CONCeSSIONAIRe

eMPLOyMeNT AND TuRNOVeR RePORTeD IN

2004/05 FOR TONGARIRO NATIONAL PARK

(TNP), ABeL TASMAN NATIONAL PARK (ATNP)

AND FIORDLAND NATIONAL PARK (FNP).

* Study data were supplemented with information from DOC

concessionaire returns to determine this figure.

† This is an estimate of the number of people employed by

all concessioned operators operating in TNP and located in

the Taupo–Ruapehu region.


summer period, its employment was about 10% of the number of its winter

FTes. The accommodation providers experienced two distinct seasons (summer

and winter) and the related summer employment levels were only slightly lower

than winter levels. employment levels of the transport operators were also fairly

consistent between the two seasons if they were providers of transport for both

skiers and walkers of the Tongariro Alpine Crossing Track. Guiding operations

were more seasonal.

Total employment for the concessioned part of ATNP businesses was

53 FTes (Table 11). This park has traditionally been a summer destination, and

its seasonality was reflected in operator employment. Low season (winter)

employment was about one-third of the annual number of FTes.

The concessioned product in FNP generated total employment of 320 FTes

(Table 11). Like ATNP, this park has also traditionally been a summer destination,

and operator employment levels similarly reflected this seasonality: low season

employment was about one-third of the annual number of FTes. Two of the

accommodation providers (on the Great Walks) were closed over the winter

season and relied entirely on the summer months for this product. Both these

providers were part of larger corporations.

Half of the TNP and ATNP business owners, and 12 FNP business owners

interviewed derived income from other sources (Fig. 3).

When asked whether they employed local people, most of the operators

interviewed stated that they employed members of the local, permanent

population (if the person had the right skills). employment of locals was seen

to be beneficial, as permanent local residents already had accommodation,

were more settled workers than short-term employees, lived nearby, had local

knowledge and appreciated the area. employing international staff was described

as a necessity owing to the seasonal nature of employment (e.g. large numbers of

staff were needed during the ski season). One operator commented that:

… we only employ locals, for local knowledge. We operate from Nelson

on purpose. It is better for staff to live in Nelson so they can commute on

company expense.

Figure 3. Other income sources of concessionaires interviewed in 2004/05 for

Tongariro National Park (TNP), Abel Tasman National

Park (ATNP) and Fiordland National Park (FNP).

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Other business

Paid employment

Private income

None

Other

Not specif ied

Sou

rce

Number

TNP

ATNP

FNP


Another operator said:

… everything we do, we try to source locally, i.e. goods, employment.

Reasons for not employing local people included special skills for management

positions not being available locally and, as mentioned above, the seasonal nature

of the work.

Most of the interviewees were able to recruit staff with the skills needed for their

business. One operator commented that they had:

… absolutely no problems recruiting staff with the appropriate skills and

that they are inundated with job applications.

Another said:

… we have never advertised for staff. People ring us so have really good

staff and the feedback is that the staff are as good as it gets. We are proud

of our staff and pay them reasonably well.

Skills considered important included being multi-skilled, being reliable, having

industry qualifications and experience. One operator said:

… to attract people to an isolated situation like the mountain is a challenge

and to retain staff is a challenge.

Indeed, a few operators commented that keeping staff was an issue:

Many can’t make a living in Nelson full-time. The sector is very seasonal.

This was echoed by another operator who said:

Nelson has people crying out for full-time tourism work.

The requirement for specialist skills, a lack of accommodation, the high cost of

living and, again, the seasonality of work were given as reasons for difficulty in

employing the right staff.

Interviewees generally expected either no change in the number of people

employed in their business in the next 2 years because business had stabilised,

or an increase, as operators were actively growing their businesses (Fig. 4).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Increase Decrease No change Don't know Not specif ied

Change in employment

Num

ber

TNP

ATNP

FNP

Figure 4. expected change in employment according to concessionaires interviewed

in 2004/05 for Tongariro National Park (TNP), Abel

Tasman National Park (ATNP) and Fiordland National Park

(FNP).


6 . 2 D I R e C T e M P L O y M e N T , O u T P u T A N D V A L u e A D D e D I N C O N C e S S I O N e D B u S I N e S S e S

Based on the data collected in 2004/05, the annual turnover and jobs generated

by concessioned tourism activity in TNP generated in turn about $14 million

per year of value added, including $11 million per year of household income

and 450 direct plus 120 further FTes (Table 12). These impacts were dominated

by Ruapehu Alpine Lifts and accommodation at The Grand Chateau and Skotel

Alpine Resort.

Concessioned tourism activity in ATNP generated $2.4 million per year of value

added (including $1.6 million per year of household income) and 20 further

FTes, whereas for FNP the figures were $21 million per year of value added,

which included $10 million per year of household income, and 55 additional

FTes (Table 12).

TNP ATNP FNP

TAuPO–RuAPeHu NeLSON–TASMAN SOuTHLAND

DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT

Output ($million/year)

Direct 30.0 4.6 51.0

Total in district 43.0 7.5 64.0

Employment (FTE)

Direct 450 53 320

Total in district 570 73 375

Value added ($million/year)

Direct 14.0 2.4 21.0


Household income ($million/year)

Direct 11.0 1.6 10.0


TABLe 12. DIReCT AND TOTAL eCONOMIC IMPACTS OF CONCeSSION OPeRATION

IN TONGARIRO NATIONAL PARK (TNP), ABeL TASMAN NATIONAL PARK (ATNP)

AND FIORDLAND NATIONAL PARK (FNP) (exCLuDING IMPACTS OF LONGeR

VISITOR STAyS IN THe DISTRICT), BASeD ON DATA FROM 2004/05.


6 . 3 T O T A L D I S T R I C T e M P L O y M e N T , O u T P u T A N D V A L u e A D D e D A S S O C I A T e D W I T H C O N C e S S I O N S

When applying economic multipliers for the Taupo–Ruapehu region, TNP’s

concessioned tourism generated total regional activity equivalent to $43 million

per year of output, 570 FTe jobs and $20 million per year of value added, including

$14 million per year of household income (Table 12).

Similar calculations for kayaking and other activities in the Nelson–Tasman

region found that ATNP concessioned tourism generated total regional activity

equivalent to $7.5 million per year of output, 73 FTe jobs and $3.8 million

per year of value added, including $2.3 million per year of household income

(Table 12).

For FNP, there was a significant error margin in the flow-on effects, principally

because it was not possible to obtain detailed expenditure data from the main

concessionaires. The data obtained, however, suggested that concessionaire

expenditure patterns were markedly different from those of other businesses

in the accommodation and guiding sectors for which data were available. It is

believed that the multipliers used probably underestimated the total effects.

Therefore, broadly relevant multipliers, derived from a Southland District

economic model that was developed for this study, were used to estimate the total

impact of the FNP concessions on the district (Table 13). The FNP concessioned

tourism product generated total activity in the Southland District14 equivalent to

$64 million of output, 375 FTe jobs and $29 million of value added, including

$14 million of household income.

even though the concessions sector is made up of different tourism industries,

and so several industry multipliers are applicable, a ‘concessions tourism

multiplier’ can be estimated. Figure 5 shows the combined concessions tourism

multiplier for each park. In TNP, for every dollar of output, a further 40 cents

were circulated (output multiplier of 1.4), and for every concession job, another

0.30 jobs were generated (employment multiplier of 1.3). every dollar generated

by ATNP concessions output created a further 60 cents of spending and one

concession job generated 0.40 jobs in the region, equating to a concessioned

TABLe 13. DIReCT AND TOTAL eCONOMIC IMPACTS OF FIORDLAND NATIONAL PARK (FNP) CONCeSSIONS ON

THe SOuTHLAND DISTRICT FOR 2004/05.

Day = day visitors; o/night = visitors staying overnight; * = data suppressed for confidentiality reasons.

OuTPuT eMPLOyMeNT VALue ADDeD HOuSeHOLD INCOMe

($MILLION/yeAR) (FTeS) ($MILLION/yeAR) ($MILLION/yeAR)

DAy O/NIGHT TOTAL DAy O/NIGHT TOTAL DAy O/NIGHT TOTAL DAy O/NIGHT TOTAL

Direct * * 51 237 82 320 * * 21 * * 10

Total 44 20 64 276 100 375 20 9 29 9 5 14

14 A small proportion of staff was employed in Queenstown Lakes District, but it was not possible to

estimate what proportion of the direct or total economic activity occurred in that district.


tourism multiplier of 1.6 for output and 1.4 for employment. A conservative

concession multiplier for the FNP concessioned tourism product was 1.3 for

output, and 1.2 for employment: in other words, every dollar of concession

spending generated 30 cents of further spending in the region, and every

concession job created a further 0.20 jobs.

These multipliers are consistent with the general tendency for multipliers of

cities and small regions to be less than 1.5 (summarised in section 2.1), and are

not unlike those cited in Table 1 for five New Zealand communities.

Figure 5. Comparison of output and employment

multipliers for concessions operating in Tongariro

National Park (TNP), Abel Tasman National Park (ATNP)

and Fiordland National Park (FNP).

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

Tongariro Abel Tasman Fiordland

National Park

Mul

tiplie

r

Output multiplier

Employment multiplier


7. expenditure and itinerary patterns of concession clients and net economic effects of concessions

using the steps set out in section 3.4 and the findings from section 6, the total

changes in direct visitor spending in the district(s) as a consequence of the

concessions’ existence were calculated. These changes in direct spending were

then rated up by applying the relevant district multipliers to get the total net

level of district economic activity that was generated by the concessions and that

would not have existed in their absence.

When investigating the net economic impact of the concession-based tourism,

it is important to note that the impacts of the concessions themselves cannot be

added to the impacts resulting from changes in people’s duration of stay, and

hence spending, in the district(s). This is because the impacts of the concession

itself may have had no effect on the district if people who could not purchase

the concessioned product decided to purchase something else instead. To this

extent, the concession impact is simply a transfer of impact within the district.

On a district scale, what really matters is the impact of the concession on total

spending in the district.

7 . 1 e x P e N D I T u R e A N D I T I N e R A R y P A T T e R N S O F C O N C e S S I O N C L I e N T S

In 2004/05, there were approximately 544 000 users of the concessioned product

in Tongariro National Park (TNP), about 25 000 users in Abel Tasman National

Park (ATNP) and about 600 000 users in Fiordland National Park (FNP). Caution

needs to be applied to these figures, particularly those for FNP and TNP, as it is

likely that a visitor to these parks may have used multiple concessioned products

and services (as well as undertaking independent activities). The estimates of

numbers of concession users are useful to begin to understand the proportion of

the total number of park users that, during their visit to a park, use a concessioned

product. The concessioned product in each of the three case studies appeared

to be used primarily by international visitors, with the exception of the skiing

activity in TNP. Operators identified the united Kingdom, Germany, the uSA and

Australia as the most common countries of origin of their clients.

Numbers of visitors to TNP in 2004/05 using the concessioned products were

approximately 427 000 ski-field users (which included summer use), and about

117 000 transport, guiding and accommodation concession users combined (the

latter results have been combined for reasons of confidentiality).

The number of ATNP concession users was approximately 25 000 kayakers

(equivalent to 28 000 kayaker-days); other concessioned activity numbered less

than 500 users.


Concession users at FNP numbered approximately 41 000 visitors staying

overnight and 555 000 taking day trips. The major concessionaires in the park

provided guided walking experiences, accommodation, water and land transport,

kayaking, and flights. The majority of guided walks by number were day trips,

but a very significant part of the income generated by concessions related to

overnight walks, which include the Hollyford, Milford and Routeburn15 Tracks.

Respondents to the survey of concession clients at TNP included 99 people

staying at concessioned accommodation and 355 using the transport concessions

to walk the Tongariro Alpine Crossing Track. However, since some respondents

were part of a group, the expenditure results are based on a sample of

1161 respondents (297 accommodation and 864 transport users). Visitors staying

at concessioned accommodation were reluctant to be interviewed16, which

meant that there is a higher error margin for the figures for users of overnight

concessioned accommodation than for those using the transport concessions,

although the estimates of daily expenditure and changes in stay duration were

very similar for the two groups.

The majority of respondents were from other countries (Table 14).

TABLe 14. NuMBeR AND PeRCeNTAGeS OF ReSPONDeNTS IN 2005 uSING

CONCeSSIONS AT TONGARIRO NATIONAL PARK (TNP), ABeL TASMAN NATIONAL

PARK (ATNP) AND FIORDLAND NATIONAL PARK (FNP), By ORIGIN AND TyPe OF

CONCeSSION.

Note: The number of respondents in each concession group does not necessarily reflect the relative sizes of the two populations.

ORIGIN TNP ATNP FNP

ACCOMMODATION TRANSPORT KAyAKING DAy VISITORS

Within the region 1% 1% 0% 0%

elsewhere in New Zealand 17% 7% 8% 6%

Internationally 82% 92% 92% 94%

Total (n) 99 355 248 224

15 Although not all of the Routeburn Track is in FNP.

16 This is possibly because the surveys were conducted at check-out. Other times were trialled, such as

at check-in, mid-afternoon (as people were returning to their accommodation) and early evening (as

people went to the bar to relax), but these were less successful.

The most common group size in TNP was two people (57%), followed by

visitors on their own (19%). Groups ranged from 1 to 20 people, with 12 groups

containing 10 or more people (groups comprised friends or tour groups). The

average length of stay in the region was 3 nights. This pattern applied to both

accommodation and transport users. No respondents expected to stay in the

region for less than 24 hours.

The most common group size for ATNP was also two people (63%). The group

size ranged from 1 to 28. The average length of stay was expected to be 4 nights

(excluding two groups staying 31 nights and one group staying 35 nights). No

respondents were expecting to stay in the region for less than 24 hours.

FNP’s most common group size was also two people (59%). The average length

of stay was 4 nights (excluding one group intending to stay 60 nights). There


Average daily expenditure at TNP by accommodation users was $107.49, while

transport users spent, on average, $112.97 during the 24 hours prior to starting

the walk. For those using the transport and guiding concessions, this would

generally have included the cost of using the concession.

Concession kayakers in ATNP spent, on average, $93.50 during the 24 hours

prior to going kayaking (this excluded the cost of the concession if it had been

pre-paid). While clients were in the park, they spent, on average, $186, mostly on

the concession or on water transport, although there was also some expenditure

on accommodation and food.

On average, the FNP visitor spent $120.20 during the 24 hours prior to being

interviewed.

7 . 2 I M P A C T O F C O N C e S S I O N S O N C L I e N T I T I N e R A R y

Twenty percent of the TNP accommodation users would have changed their stay

in the Taupo–Ruapehu region if the concessioned product had not been available.

Of those, 61% would have changed their stay in the park. If the concession had

not been available, the accommodation user would have stayed 1.01 fewer days

in the park and 0.29 fewer days in the region (Table 16), implying that many

users would simply have stayed in other accommodation.

Of TNP transport users, 19% would have changed their stay in the region if

the concessioned product had not been available. Of those, 36% would have

changed their stay in the park. The average user of a transport concession

would have stayed 0.19 days more in the park and 0.22 days less in the district

if there had been no concession available. The longer stay in the park in the

absence of concessions might be due to the fact that those who would still have

come to the district would possibly have replaced walking the Crossing with

taking a round trip, of longer duration, within the park. Given the estimated

TABLe 15. AVeRAGe CONCeSSION CLIeNT exPeNDITuRe PeR DAy FOR

TONGARIRO NATIONAL PARK (TNP), ABeL TASMAN NATIONAL PARK (ATNP) AND

FIORDLAND NATIONAL PARK (FNP) IN 2005.

units = $ per person per day.

exPeNDITuRe TNP ATNP FNP

CATeGORy ACCOMMODATION TRANSPORT KAyAKING DAy VISITOR

Accommodation 49.57 25.74 28.10 30.50

Transport 14.08 31.89 11.80 6.40

Restaurants, etc. 24.81 9.67 15.90 12.40

Retail 10.71 17.43 34.30 17.60

entertainment 8.32 28.20 3.20 53.30

Miscellaneous 0.00 0.04 0.20 0.00

Total 107.49 112.97 93.50 120.20

were 23 respondents that were expecting to visit the region for the day only (less

than 24 hours).

Table 15 shows the average expenditure by concession clients in the 24 hours

prior to starting the activity.


average daily expenditure for each group, this implies that, in the absence of

concessions, there would have been a reduction in expenditure in the district of

$31 per person for those that stayed at concessioned accommodation and $25

for those that used the transport and guiding concessions.

users of ATNP concessions spent 2.37 additional days in the region. If they had

not been able to use the concession, the average kayak concession user would

have spent 0.81 fewer days in the park and a further 1.56 fewer days17 elsewhere

in the region.

From the responses of clients on day trip concessions to FNP, the average

day-concession user spent 3.46 days in Southland District and would have

spent 0.28 fewer days in the district if he/she had not been able to use the

concession. Clients also said that they would have spent 0.08 extra days in the

park if the concession had not been available.18 Given the exploratory nature

of this component of the study, including time and budget limitations, all days

in concessioned accommodation were considered to be additional to what the

client would otherwise have spent in the Southland District.

In the case of accommodation concessions for FNP (including overnight, guided

trips on the Milford, Hollyford and Routeburn Tracks), it was assumed that

because the concession was available, there was an increase in expenditure in

the Southland District equivalent to the expenditure on the concession.19 For

SeLF-PReDICTeD OuTCOMe IF ACCOMMODATION TRANSPORT

CONCeSSION WAS NOT AVAILABLe CONCeSSIONS CONCeSSIONS

In TNP

Would change stay 61% 36%

Mean change in stay –1.01 nights/person +0.19 nights/person

Mean change in expenditure –$109/person ? *

In Taupo-Ruapehu region

Would change stay 20% 19%

Mean change in stay –0.29 nights/person –0.22 nights/person

Mean change in expenditure –$31/person –$25/person

TABLe 16. eFFeCTS OF TONGARIRO NATIONAL PARK (TNP) CONCeSSIONS ON

CLIeNT ITINeRARIeS AND SPeNDING PeR PeRSON IN 2005.

* Not known. Spending in the park would differ enormously from typical daily average spending.

17 It was feasible to add together the concession impact and the impact on visitor stays by adjusting the

visitor stay elsewhere in the region to reflect time that was spent at the concession and would otherwise

have been spent elsewhere in the region. Hence, it is assumed that kayaking transfers spending away from

other typical activities, which people would have otherwise undertaken in that time.

18 This is possibly because concession operators got clients into and out of the park faster than clients

could have on their own. A number of respondents commented that this more efficient use of their

time was precisely the reason they used concession activities.

19 Those using these concessions were not surveyed. The assumption was based on discussions with

managers of the concessions involving overnight accommodation, who said that in their view the

majority of clients would not otherwise have come to Southland. Many of these visitors would have

spent a little more money in the district during their visit (e.g. visit a restaurant in Te Anau), but

offsetting this would be the few who, if they could not have used the concessioned accommodation,

would have spent time elsewhere in the district.


day-trip concessions, it was assumed that if visitors had not spent money on the

concession, they would have undertaken some alternative activity of equivalent

cost, making the concession impact simply a transfer of economic activity between

businesses within the district. It was also assumed that it was only when visitors

spent more time in the region that spending increased.20 Hence, the net impact

on district spending of day-trip concessions was the increase in time that people

spent in the district because the concession existed and the implied increase

in expenditure that was associated with this increase in stay. These were very

conservative assumptions, because some people who stayed in the district might

not have found alternative commercial activities to replace the concessioned

activity. It would have been too liberal to assume that the impacts of the day-trip

concessions could have been added to the change in visitor expenditure due to

the extended stay of the day-trip visitors.

7 . 3 N e T e C O N O M I C I M P A C T O F T H e C L I e N T S ’ u S e O F C O N C e S S I O N S

The previous section estimated the impact of the concession on the duration of

the visitors’ stays and spending in the district. The net impact of a concession

could be zero if an alternative attraction has the same economic impact as the

concession. However, a positive impact can occur if the alternative attraction is

cheaper, or if the concessioned activity persuades visitors to stay in the district

longer than they would otherwise have done. Once the impacts on visitor stays

are taken into account, the economic impacts change markedly.

The results presented for the TNP product principally reflect the park’s summer

use, as only users of the accommodation and the transport concessions were

surveyed. It was assumed that users of Ruapehu Alpine Lifts would otherwise

not have come to the area in winter had the ski-field services not been available,

and hence the entire economic impact of winter skiing was assumed to be

dependent on the concession (and, to a lesser degree, the concessions held by the

Grand Chateau and Skotel Alpine Resort). Those using Ruapehu Alpine Lifts were

not surveyed, because the lift use related primarily to winter use and because

a study of the economic impact of the Mount Ruapehu ski fields has previously

been completed by the New Zealand Tourism Research Institute (TRI 2002).21

The results of the TRI study were used as the best indicator available of total

winter economic impacts of Ruapehu Alpine Lifts, regarding skiers and the winter

activity. The only adjustment made was to convert the TRI employment figures

from a mix of full-time and part-time, seasonal and non-seasonal jobs to FTe jobs,

using an employment-to-output ratio that is typical of the concessions surveyed

and of other relevant businesses in the region. It was assumed that summer users

of the lifts would not have changed the duration of their stay in the district if they

had not been able to use the lifts.

20 It was assumed that the decline in expenditure was equivalent to the decline in the number of nights

spent in the region multiplied by the average expenditure per day.

21 The calculated winter impact (TRI 2002) includes that proportion of the concession accommodation

that was due to skiing users. Double counting of this impact has been avoided.


It was also assumed that non-skiing users of the transport and accommodation

concessions who said they would still have stayed in the region in the absence

of the concession would have used other accommodation or have undertaken

other activities of similar cost to the concession. Hence, the loss of regional

economic activity was best measured by the decline in average stay multiplied

by the average spend per day.

Given the number of users of each type of concession, it was estimated that

direct visitor spending generated by the increased stay due to that proportion

of concessions that were not skiing-dependent was approximately $7 million

per year. By applying multipliers for the various aspects of visitor spending,

the total economic impacts of visitor spending were estimated (Table 17).

That proportion of tourism concessions in TNP that did not depend on skiing

generated a total (net) economic activity in the Taupo–Ruapehu region of

$10.1 million per year of output, 102 FTe jobs and $4 million per year of value

added, including $2.5 million per year of household income. Inclusion of the

economic activity associated with skiing22 raised the total impact dependent

on concessioned activities to $129.1 million per year of output, 1887 FTe jobs

and $59.9 million per year of value added, including $38.1 million per year of

household income.

Based on the number of kayak-concession users, it was estimated that direct visitor

spending in the Nelson–Tasman region, aside from that spent in ATNP, increased

by approximately $3.7 million as a result of the operation of the concessions.23

Applying multipliers estimated for the various aspects of visitor spending yielded

a net economic impact of the tourism concessions in ATNP of an additional

$8.3 million per year in total district output (Table 18). Associated with this was

an increase in employment of 121 FTe jobs and value added of $4.9 million per

year, including household income of $3.0 million per year.

Based on the number of day concession users in FNP, it was estimated that direct

visitor spending in the region, apart from that spent on overnight concessions,

increased by approximately $19 million as a result of the operation of the

concessions. estimated district multipliers for the various aspects of visitor

spending were applied to the direct additional visitor spending, and yielded a

conservative estimate for net district economic impact associated with tourism

concessions in FNP of an increase in output of $51 million per year. Associated

with this was an increase in employment of 280 FTe jobs and value added

of $17 million per year, including household income of $9 million per year

(Table 19).

22 As estimated by New Zealand TRI, March 2002.

23 This takes into account the fact that if visitors had not been using the concession, then they would

have spent their time elsewhere in the region.


CONCeSSION IMPACT DIReCT OuTPuT eMPLOyMeNT VALue ADDeD HOuSeHOLD INCOMe

($MILLION/yeAR) (FTe) ($MILLION/yeAR) ($MILLION/yeAR)

Non-skiing-related 10.1 102 4.0 2.5

Skiing-related 119.0 1785 55.9 35.6

Total concession-dependent impacts 129.1 1887 59.9 38.1

TABLe 17. NeT IMPACTS OF CONCeSSIONS ON exPeNDITuRe, eMPLOyMeNT AND VALue ADDeD IN THe

TAuPO–RuAPeHu ReGION IN 2005.

TABLe 18. TOTAL IMPACTS OF CONCeSSIONS ON exPeNDITuRe, eMPLOyMeNT AND VALue ADDeD IN THe

NeLSON–TASMAN ReGION IN 2005.

CONCeSSION IMPACT OuTPuT ($MILLION/yeAR) TOTAL TOTAL VALue TOTAL HOuSeHOLD

DIReCT TOTAL eMPLOyMeNT ADDeD INCOMe

(FTe) ($MILLION/yeAR) ($MILLION/yeAR)

Concession 4.6 7.5 73 3.8 2.3

extended stay in rest of district 3.7 5.1 48 1.1 0.7

Total impacts (rounded) 8.3 12.6 121 4.9 3.0

TABLe 19. NeT IMPACTS OF CONCeSSIONS ON exPeNDITuRe, eMPLOyMeNT AND VALue ADDeD IN

SOuTHLAND DISTRICT IN 2005.

CONCeSSION IMPACT OuTPuT ($MILLION/yeAR) TOTAL TOTAL VALue TOTAL HOuSeHOLD

DIReCT TOTAL eMPLOyMeNT ADDeD INCOMe

(FTe) ($MILLION/yeAR) ($MILLION/yeAR)

Overnight concession impact * 20.0 100 9.0 5.0

extended stay in rest of district 19.0 31.0 180 8.0 4.0

Total impacts (conservative) * 51.0 280 17.0 9.0

* Suppressed for reasons of confidentiality.


8. Discussion and conclusions

The purpose of this study was to assess the direct and secondary socio-

economic effects of concession-based tourism on adjacent communities and

regional economies in selected New Zealand case-study areas. Specifically,

using information about Tongariro, Abel Tasman and Fiordland National Parks

(TNP, ATNP and FNP, respectively), and one each of their gateway communities

and district(s) (National Park Village and Taupo–Ruapehu region; Marahau and

Nelson–Tasman region; Te Anau and Southland District), the research addressed

the following questions (taken from section 1):

What is the social (community) context of concession-based tourism in the •

three case-study communities?

What are the features of tourism concessioned businesses and their products •

and services?

Are the socio-economic effects of concessioned tourism activity measurable?•

If so, what are those effects on the economic activities in the local community •

and region?

What factors influence the importance of concession-based tourism on the •

community?

Table 20 presents a general summary of the findings of this study. These findings,

and specifically those about the economic impacts of concession-based tourism,

are further developed in sections 8.1–8.4, while section 8.5 provides a brief

summary of the methodological considerations of assessing the socio-economic

impacts.

8 . 1 S O C I A L C O N T e x T O F C O N C e S S I O N - B A S e D T O u R I S M

each of the gateway communities was a major entry point to the adjacent national

park, although not necessarily the only entry point. These communities are

located in rural landscapes with a natural character and local traditions unique

to the region. They are all communities with small populations.

each national park is an important visitor destination and an integral part of the

regional tourism product. FNP and TNP are established destinations in which

large-scale tourism activity has been part of the business environment since

tourism began in these areas in the 19th century (which included government

ownership). Commercial tourism activity in ATNP really began only in the

mid-1980s, with the introduction of kayaking services. A boom in kayaking and

water transport activity followed in the mid-1990s.

each region has a large proportion of the concessioned businesses located within

it, with varying numbers of businesses present in the gateway communities.


Half of FNP’s businesses were dispersed throughout New Zealand, but of the

89 businesses that operated in the park, 32 were located in the gateway

communities of Te Anau and Manapouri. The majority (26) of the 38 businesses

operating in ATNP were based in the Nelson–Tasman region, including five in

Marahau. Most of the TNP operators were based in the Taupo–Ruapehu region,

with four actually based in Whakapapa Village, inside the park.

Te Anau has been a destination and a gateway for a long time, whereas Marahau

has become a gateway and low-key holiday destination for bach-style holidays

much more recently. The role of National Park Village as a gateway is greatly

affected by the presence of a gateway community (Whakapapa Village) inside the

national park, making the park largely ‘self-contained’ in terms of visitor services.

each gateway had a very high dependency on tourism.

CATeGORy FINDINGS

Featuresofconcessioned•Therewasaconcentrationofactivity-basedproducts.

tourismbusinesses •Thedistributionofconcessionedbusinessesreflectedtheproximityof

the national park (except for guiding activities).

•Therelationshipwithvisitordemandandtravelpatternwasnot

entirely clear.

•BusinessesinATNPwereyoungandsmall,whilstinTNPandFNP

they were established and old, reflecting the maturity of the

respective destination.

•Therewasawiderangeofenterprises,fromverylarge-scale,intensive

ones to small, low-impact ones.

•Mostwererunbyowner-operators.

Socio-economiceffects •Employeenumbersrangedfrom0toover700.

ongatewaycommunity •Peakseasonemploymentwasupto3–4timeshigherthanthatofthe

and region low season.

•Operatorspreferredtoemploylocals,althoughthiswasnot

necessarily feasible.

• Itwasgenerallypossibletoobtainstaffwiththerightskills.

•Turnoverrangedfromverylittletoverylarge.

•Themajorityofoperatorswereabletoearnanincome.

•Concessionedtourismaddedpressureonthelocalinfrastructurebut

also supported the needs of gateway communities.

•Therewashighseasonality.

Otherinfluencingfactors •Thereispotentialforgreaterintegrationwithregionaltourism

marketing.

•Thereispotentialforfurtherlinkageswithothertourismbusinesses

and other sectors.

•TNPalsohasagatewaycommunityinthepark.

•Gatewaycommunitiesprovideservicesforvisitorsoutsidethepark.

•Thereisstillplentyofpotentialforadditionalconcessionedproducts.

•Thereisopportunityforincreasedcooperationofgateway

communities with the management of adjacent protected areas.

TABLe 20. SuMMARy OF THe FeATuReS OF CONCeSSIONS-BASeD TOuRISM

DeRIVeD FROM THe THRee CASe-STuDy AReAS.


8 . 2 F e A T u R e S O F T H e T O u R I S M C O N C e S S I O N e D B u S I N e S S e S S T u D I e D

The tourism industry in TNP and FNP appeared to be stable. In contrast, both the

concessioned and non-concessioned tourism sectors serving ATNP recently saw

many changes, with the acquisition of the two pioneer kayaking companies by large

enterprises (Wakatu Incorporation and Shotover). Several of the ATNP operators

identified the consolidation of businesses and arrival of large corporations—the

arrival of ‘big business’—as an issue. Ownership of a business, in terms of a

business being legal and local, was identified as an important factor by several

operators in each of the case-study locations, with some smaller businesses in

particular commenting that preference should be given to local companies.

The majority of the concessioned businesses in the case-study locations were

small-scale operations, but a significant feature was the existence of a few

large enterprises that largely drove the concessioned sector. In each park, the

commercial tourism activity was generally concentrated, although low-impact,

small-scale activities such as guided walking were dispersed throughout each

park. A significant feature of concessioned tourism activity in TNP was its large-

scale, high-impact infrastructure, dominated by the ski fields. The concessioned

product in ATNP was low impact and small scale, and was mainly based on a

single product (guided kayaking). The scale of concessioned tourism activity and

the range of products in FNP were considerable but varied according to location.

This was partly a result of the size of the park (it is the largest national park

in New Zealand) and the topography (rugged and largely inaccessible), which

necessitated transport of provisions and dictated concentration of activity.

For each park, the guided concessions were the largest category by concessionaire

numbers.24 Guided walking is characterised by generally being small scale and

low impact, requiring little in the way of entry/establishment costs.25 A number

of local companies have taken up this opportunity, although a large proportion

of guided walking concessions are held by companies located elsewhere in

New Zealand or internationally. Generally, this product was not the largest

contributor in terms of employment and turnover to tourism impact, although in

the case of FNP, it may have been responsible for a large proportion of visitors that

intensively used some sites in the park, creating social and ecological stresses.

One or several large employers were the drivers of concessioned employment.

The employment in TNP generated by the concessioned tourism product was

driven by Ruapehu Alpine Lifts, which was by far the largest employer in the

park. Likewise, Real Journeys in FNP was one of the key employers in the park

(based on concessioned activity). There has been no single dominant employer

to date in ATNP, but one may yet emerge with the merging of a number of the

operations since 2003.

Owing to the dependency of the concessioned activities on suitable weather

conditions and market preferences, each of the locations showed significant

seasonal variability. TNP’s winter concessioned product (skiing) drove visitation

24 Most of the concessions for TNP were club lodges, which were outside the scope of this study.

25 except for guided walking on Fiordland’s Great Walks, where accommodation is provided.


to the Taupo–Ruapehu District. TNP’s concessioned employment during the

summer season was only one-tenth that of the high, winter season, reflecting the

large dependency on the skiing product; however, tourism operators benefited

from the development of a summer season based on transporting independent

visitors walking the Tongariro Alpine Crossing Track. The summer activity in

this park can still be expanded, as signalled in the draft park management plan

(DOC 2003). The dependency on suitable winter weather was clearly

demonstrated for TNP, where the poor snow years and volcanic activity during

the 1990s decreased ski-field use and visitors. FNP is a summer destination, and

peak season summer employment for Fiordland’s concessionaires was about 50%

as much as the region’s annual FTe level. employment during the low season in

FNP concessioned activity was about one-third of the total FTe generated by the

park’s concessioned activities. The Nelson–Tasman region was also a summer

destination and employment levels of ATNP’s concessionaires were about three

times higher in summer than in winter. ATNP’s peak season was twice the total

FTe generated by the concessioned activities. ATNP’s peak season employment

was twice the total FTe generated by the concessioned activities. For all three

locations, a combination of weather, topography and park management mean

that all three parks will continue to be affected by seasonality; developing the

low season potential was raised by several operators.

The relative importance attributed to the concessioned businesses by the

operators and visitors surveyed was interesting. Both the operator and the

visitor were asked about the features of the product that attracted the visitor

(Table 21). Operators in all three parks said that the location of the activity and

the park itself were key features, as well as the natural landscape and iconic status

TNP ATNP FNP

Features that attract visitors to

the concessioned product

Operator •Accessibility •NationalPark •Naturalenvironment

• Iconicfeaturesofthepark •Operatorinfrastructure •Operator

andaccommodation •Diversityofactivities

•Naturalfeatures

•Convenience

•Operatortimetable

Visitor •Location •Activity •Convenience

•Partoftourpackage •Location •Operator

•Convenience

•Constraints

Importance of the concessioned

product in attracting visitors to

the region

Operator •Veryimportant •Veryimportant •Veryimportant/important

Visitor •Notimportant •Primarypurposeoftripor •Oneofseveralreasons

one of several reasons

TABLe 21. ROLe OF THe CONCeSSIONeD TOuRISM PRODuCT IN ATTRACTING VISITORS FOR TONGARIRO

NATIONAL PARK (TNP), ABeL TASMAN NATIONAL PARK (ATNP) AND FIORDLAND NATIONAL PARK (FNP),

BASeD ON INTeRVIeWS CONDuCTeD IN 2004/05.

Source: Operator interviews and visitor surveys.


of the area. In addition to these natural features, operator characteristics such

as group size, quality of service, uniqueness of the product, safety, facilities, the

accessibility they provide into the park, convenience, the diversity of activities

and the operator infrastructure (both concessioned and non-concessioned) were

important. These features were similar to those described by the visitor: location,

convenience, the activity itself and the operator.

8 . 3 e C O N O M I C e F F e C T S O F T O u R I S M C O N C e S S I O N S

8.3.1 Qualitative look at the economic effects

each of the gateway communities was affected by the concessioned tourism

activity in different ways.

National Park Village accommodation providers were capitalising on the summer

visitor intending to walk the Tongariro Alpine Crossing Track by providing

transport or linking with transport operators taking passengers to walk the

Crossing. During the winter, the township benefited less, as there was a large

amount of accommodation available within the park (club ski lodges and

commercial accommodation providers).

While the Marahau community was affected by the large amount of traffic

movement generated by the commercial tourism activity (locally-owned tractors

with trailers transport the water taxi and kayaking equipment to and from the

launching beach), operators also said that tourism opportunities in ATNP meant

that locals could stay and make a living. One operator described the changes in

terms of the park’s two key gateway communities:

In the past, the Abel Tasman had no profile, but Kaiteriteri was the place to

go. Kaiteriteri has become very commercial but Marahau has maintained its

naturalness values. Marahau has changed a lot and Wakatu’s aspirations

are likely to change Marahau again.

Te Anau, in particular, appeared to be successful as a gateway community,

although there was a large dependency on tourism, including concession-based

tourism. There were many linkages between the local operators, and the tourism

businesses also contributed to the improvement of services and facilities within

the township. A number of FNP operators saw concessioned tourism benefiting

the gateway community.

In general, Te Anau lives or dies based on concession operators. Since

1888, people have come to walk the Milford Track. Take it away, you will

have nothing left. Even people coming in on a bus will end up with an

operator. The community needs them and benefits hugely from them.

One operator said:

… people wouldn’t come if they couldn’t do activities. Concessionaires

provide activities. Without concessions, Te Anau wouldn’t be what it is.

Another operator said:

Concessions held collectively by Te Anau operators are very important. If

they didn’t have a concession, they probably wouldn’t have the other part

of the business either.


The majority of operators in the three case-study locations generally identified

economic benefits from tourism and, in particular, the concessioned tourism

activity. With economic effects, they included generating employment and

revenue at the local and regional level, as well as income for local businesses

and residents. Operators in TNP and FNP emphasised the way that tourism

activity helped to generate a variety of goods and services in the area.

ATNP operators stated that tourism contributed to attracting investment in

the area and commented on local attitudes (positive and negative) to tourists,

opportunities to meeting interesting people and the ability to share aspects of

the local culture. FNP operators particularly emphasised the linkages between

one effect and another. For example, the employment and economic effects

were seen to not only generate revenue for local people, but also to cause people

to remain in the community because they were employed. In addition, having a

steady population assisted the local school:

… with employment you get people staying here and schools, other

businesses, etc. Businesses attract tourists in so you get more flow on

effects.

These operators also commented on the additional services that they provided,

such as search and rescue. Operators in TNP and ATNP made much less comment

on visitor or social benefits. Table 22 shows the range of effects mentioned by

the operators.

Generally, benefits and downsides of the concessioned activity were considered

indistinguishable from the effects of non-concessioned tourism activities. Most

operators considered that, overall, benefits from concessioned activity were part

of the wider tourism picture:

All commercial operators view themselves as being in one basket, that is

kayaking, water taxis, etc.

eFFeCT ON PeRCeIVeD BeNeFITS PeRCeIVeD DOWNSIDe

Economy •Generaterevenue •Seasonality

•Employment

•Businesslinkages

Community •Lifeandvitalityofthecommunity •Pressuresoninfrastructure

•Servicesandfacilitiesinthe •Pressureonstaffaccommodation

community

Visitorexperience •Visitorawareness

•Park-basedattractionsandactivities*

Nationalpark •Contributiontoconservation • Illegaloperators*

environment •Concessionsmanagementsystem* •Concessionsmanagementsystem*

•Qualityofnaturalenvironment*

TABLe 22. SuMMARy OF OPeRATOR PeRCePTIONS OF THe eFFeCTS OF

CONCeSSIONeD TOuRISM IN THe CASe-STuDy NATIONAL PARKS, COMMuNITIeS

AND ReGIONS BASeD ON DATA COLLeCTeD IN 2004/05.

* These features were considered to be unique to the concessioned activity.


Some operators believed that concessioned and non-concessioned tourism had

similar benefits:

There is no real difference but businesses that have a concession have more

red tape to go through.

Other operators said:

No differentiation here really whether businesses have a concession and

don’t have a concession [for visitors and business]. The contribution to the

community is still the same.

To communities, the benefits are the same, to businesses there is a difference;

concessions are a barrier to entry.

For individual businesses, the concessioned activity was of great benefit if the

business was greatly dependent on it.

Clearly, operators in all three case-study locations believed that, overall, the

concessioned product was either important or very important in attracting

people to the region (see also Table 22). Visitors’ views, however, were not

quite so consistent. For the summer visitor to the Taupo–Ruapehu region, the

concessioned product was not an important reason for the visit. Winter visitors

were not surveyed, but it was assumed that for this visitor the skiing concessioned

product would be the primary reason for coming to the district. Visitors to the

Nelson–Tasman region said that the concessioned product was the primary

purpose of the trip or one of several reasons. This is indicative of the iconic

status of ATNP in the region’s tourism sector as well as in international marketing.

For Southland visitors, the concessioned product was one of several reasons for

visiting. It would appear that most visitors come to the area for the park itself and

the attractions at Milford Sound. The positioning of the concessioned product in

a region’s tourism marketing is worthy of further exploration.

From an economic impact and community development perspective, the most

‘valuable’ park visitors are those who stay in the region adjacent to the park,

spending money on accommodation, in souvenir shops, in restaurants and on

other commercial activities, usually in gateway communities outside the park.

Concession users did not generally spend a significant amount of money while

engaged in activities within the park; most spending generally took place outside

the park, especially when visitors stayed overnight in the area. In other words,

the longer a park visitor can be encouraged to stay in the region before or after

their park visit, the more the local or regional economy is likely to benefit.

The results of this study should enable the development of appropriate indicators

to measure the contribution of concession-based tourism in the future. Although

this was beyond the scope of this study, a suggested suite of indicators that

requires further development is provided in Appendix 3.

8.3.2 Quantitative look at the economic effects

This study found that the concessioned component of park-based tourism is

measurable as a distinct component of the overall park tourism use and that its

economic effect can indeed be assessed as a distinct part of regional tourism

activity.


Findings on concessions’ effects were presented in section 6 and summarised

in Tables 11 and 12. Here, they are presented in terms of the regional

economy (Table 23). While the figures for the three parks refer only to that

proportion of the business that was due to the concessioned product (any other,

non-concessioned tourism activities carried out by the operator were not

included), the concessioned sector alone clearly makes a sizeable contribution

to the regional tourism economy.

In particular, the total direct output by TNP concessioned activity was estimated

at $30 million per year, with an additional $13 million in flow-on effects. This

means that for every dollar generated by the concessioned product, a further

40 cents of spending in the region were generated. every job in the TNP

concessioned tourism economy (450 FTes) generated 0.30 jobs elsewhere. It was

estimated that the park’s tourism concessions generated about 14% of Ruapehu–

Taupo’s tourism employment (Table 23).

In Nelson–Tasman, a larger region with a much more diversified industry base

(only 12.5% of the economy depended on tourism) and higher levels of visitor

arrivals, total output by the concessioned activity was estimated at $4.6 million

per year, with an additional $2.9 million in flow-on effects (Table 23). every dollar

generated led to a further spending of 60 cents in the region. every job in the

ATNP concessioned economy (53 FTes) generated 0.40 jobs elsewhere, although

this represented only about 1% of Nelson–Tasman’s tourism employment.

TNP ATNP FNP*

TAuPO–RuAPeHu NeLSON–TASMAN SOuTHLAND

DISTRICTS & ReGION DISTRICTS & ReGION DISTRICT & ReGION

Output ($million/year)

Direct 30.0 4.6 51.0

Total† in district 43.0 7.5 64.0

Total in region’s tourism 2833 5365 7321

Employment (FTE)

Direct 450 53 320

Total in district 570 73 375

Total in region’s tourism 17 900 32 990 40 076

Value added ($million/year)

Direct 14.0 2.4 21.0



Household income ($million/year)

Direct 11.0 1.6 10.0



TABLe 23. COMPARISON OF DIReCT AND TOTAL eCONOMIC IMPACTS OF

CONCeSSION OPeRATIONS (exCLuDING IMPACTS OF LONGeR VISITOR STAyS

IN THe DISTRICT) FOR TONGARIRO NATIONAL PARK (TNP), ABeL TASMAN

NATIONAL PARK (ATNP) AND FIORDLAND NATIONAL PARK (FNP), BASeD ON DATA

COLLeCTeD IN 2004/05.

* The FNP figures represent the concessioned tourism activity of businesses located in

Te Anau and Manapouri only.

† Total includes direct, indirect and induced impacts of the concession operations.


The FNP concessioned tourism product generated a total output of $51 million per

year, with a further $13 million in flow-on effects. For every dollar of spending,

a further 30 cents of spending was generated in the regional economy. every

FNP concessioned tourism job (there were 320 FTes) led to a further 0.20 jobs.

This represented nearly 10% of Southland’s tourism employment and about

one-third of the Fiordland tourism employment (Table 23).

The differences in the flow-on effects of concessioned activity between the case

studies is a reflection of the diversity of the scale and type of concessioned tourism

activity and of the regions’ economies (Figs 6–8). The flow-on effects of TNP and

FNP were smaller than those of ATNP, reflecting the limited manufacturing base

and business support services in the regions surrounding TNP and FNP.

The concessioned tourism of ATNP had many more significant linkages into

the economy than in the other two regions, despite its smaller values in terms

of turnover and employment. The multiplier effects, however, show that the

concessioned product of ATNP had twice the effect in terms of output and

employment as that generated by FNP concessioned tourism activity, and

1.5 times that of FNP (Table 24). As stated earlier, for confidentiality reasons, the

multiplier for each of the sectors cannot be made available.

The literature review provided in section 2 showed that output (sales) multipliers

increase as one moves from rural to small metro to larger metro regions, reflecting

the increased circulation of money within more developed regions. Job-to-output

ratios usually move in the other direction, owing to the generally larger firms

and economies of scale in more developed regions, and their usually higher

wages and fewer part-time and seasonal jobs. Service sectors are more labour

intensive, creating more jobs and greater personal income per dollar of sales

(Stynes & Sun 2003).

Not only did DOC tourism

concessions in national parks

generate very considerable amounts

of economic activity directly,

they generated net impacts in the

region that were between two-

thirds and four times as great as the

direct impacts of the concessions

themselves, once the impacts

on visitor stays were taken into

account (even after taking into

account the fact that the activity at

the concessions may have been transferred from other businesses in the district)

(see Table 24).

Tourism concessions in TNP generated almost 1900 FTe jobs in the Taupo–

Ruapehu Districts, as well as $60 million of value added, including $38 million

of household income (Table 25). This net economic impact was about four

times the direct impacts of the concessions themselves. As for employment, the

impacts were dominated by Ruapehu Alpine Lifts, which drove all skiing-related

impacts of the region, and these made up more than 90% of total economic

impacts in the district.

TNP ATNP FNP

Output 1.4 1.6 1.3

employment 1.3 1.4 1.2

Value added 1.4 1.6 1.4

Household income 1.3 1.4 1.4

TABLe 24. OVeRALL CONCeSSION

MuLTIPLIeRS uSeD FOR TONGARIRO

NATIONAL PARK (TNP), ABeL TASMAN

NATIONAL PARK (ATNP) AND FIORDLAND

NATIONAL PARK (FNP).


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


National Park

Tota

l out

put (

$m/y

ear)

Indirect output

Direct output

Figure 6. Comparison of direct and indirect output in

the three case-study areas.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


National Park

Tota

l val

ue a

dded

($m

/yea

r)

Indirect value added

Direct value added

Figure 8. Comparison of direct and indirect value

added in the three case-study areas.

Figure 7. Comparison of direct and indirect

employment in the three case-study areas.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


National Park

Tota

l em

ploy

men

t (FT

E)

Indirect employment

Direct employment

)


Tourism concessions in ATNP generated 120 FTe jobs in the Nelson–Tasman

Districts, as well as $5.0 million per year of value added, including $3.0 million

per year of household income (Table 25), which was about twice the direct

impacts of the concessions themselves.

Tourism concessions in FNP generated, at a conservative estimate, 280 FTe jobs

in Southland District, as well as $17 million per year of value added, including

$9 million per year of household income (Table 25). This was only 90% of the

direct economic impacts of the concession, which contrasted with the situation

in the other national parks. These effects reflect the fact that the longer stay and

associated higher spending ($19 million) by clients of day-trip concessions was

less than the revenue generated by those on one-day concessions. This, in turn,

indicates that a significant part of the visitor expenditure on day-trip concessions

was a transfer away from other forms of expenditure.

The estimates of the impact of the concessioned product on visitor itinerary

and the subsequent impact on the regional economy must be interpreted

with caution. This area of work is exploratory, and has not sufficiently taken

into account differences in spending and the primary purpose of using

the concessioned product across visitor segments, especially for FNP. The

TNP component has excluded the winter concession user, although evidence

of low visitation levels during no-snow seasons provided a reasonable parallel.

The FNP study considered only the day visitor and not visitors staying overnight,

either at accommodation provided with guided walking on the Great Walks or in

the concessioned commercial accommodation within the park. Further work in

this area would be valuable.

8 . 4 F A C T O R S T H A T I N F L u e N C e T H e e F F e C T O F C O N C e S S I O N e D T O u R I S M

It was anticipated that a number of factors would influence the contribution

concessioned tourism is able to make to the local communities and regional

economies. Features identified from the literature as reducing that influence

included the likelihood of businesses being small scale and young with high

levels of seasonality; natural resource dependence, which while relatively

effective (compared with urban areas) in generating employment and income,

was affected by higher levels of income leakage; and problems locating local

TABLe 25. COMPARISON OF TOTAL NeT IMPACTS OF CONCeSSIONS ON THe SuRROuNDING DISTRICT(S) FOR

TONGARIRO NATIONAL PARK (TNP), ABeL TASMAN NATIONAL PARK (ATNP) AND FIORDLAND NATIONAL PARK

(FNP), BASeD ON DATA BASeD COLLeCTeD IN 2004/05.

TNP ATNP FNP

NON-SKIING-ReLATeD SKIING-ReLATeD TOTAL

Output ($million/year) 10.1 119 129.1 12.5 51

employment (FTe) 102 1785 1887 120 280

Value added ($million/year) 4.0 55.9 59.9 5.0 17

Household income ($million/year) 2.5 35.6 38.1 3.0 9


labour supply. Other factors that were anticipated to be relevant were the

community’s economic dependence on tourism, nature of land ownership and

stage of lifecycle (i.e. the maturity of the concessioned businesses).

The magnitude of the socio-economic effects of concession-based tourism

in the three national parks appears to be a function of a number of features

(see Table 20), including factors that can be considered characteristic of:

The gateway community and regional economy•

The concessioned business•

The concessioned tourist•

Tourism planning, management and marketing•

For each of the communities studied, the national park was a basis for the local

economy, which will be affected by DOC management policies that have the

potential to generate or constrain development opportunities. For example, the

TNP management plan (DOC 2003) signals that no further development will take

place in the park and that DOC expects additional services in the future such

as accommodation to be provided by the communities surrounding the park.

Likewise, at the time of writing, DOC was drafting a new management plan for

ATNP, which may result in changes to the way tourism concessions are allocated,

which, in turn, will affect the businesses (local and elsewhere) that currently

have a concession.

All commercial tourism activity taking place in TNP is concession-based. This is

not the case in ATNP and FNP. Both these parks have significant non-concessioned

commercial activity. ATNP is interspersed with private land containing private

and commercial accommodation, and both private land and the park are

supported by commercial water transport businesses (water taxis) that do not

require a concession but are a significant feature. Likewise, road transport (along

Milford Road) through FNP to Milford Sound, aircraft overflights and the cruise-

ship industry on Milford Sound (and all sounds) do not require a concession.

In all three case-study locations, most of the operators commented on the role

of the concessions management system and the way this system affected their

business activity. The number of concessions was identified as an issue for many

operators. This encompassed a view that DOC intended to cap numbers in some

locations. Cost, compliance and process were seen as factors that hindered the

concessions management system, as well as timeframes and DOC’s commercial

naïvety. Operators expressed particular concern about the inconsistent way in

which the concessions approval process was being applied and that, generally,

concession applications were not declined by DOC, creating pressure on

the natural and business environments. The need for permits to operate on

conservation lands was largely supported, as it was seen to provide a regulatory

environment that avoided possible damage to the resource.

Interestingly, a number of operators identified the marketing of a national park or

a particular product as being a key factor in affecting the impacts of concessioned

tourism:

Overseas clients will be drivers [for new products] as kiwis don’t really

use concessions much. So you need to create something iconic before the

international visitor leaves home. You need a lot of time and money.

Current operators attach themselves to existing icons. That is why Milford

Sound has been overrun—it is iconic. There is a lot of potential but it won’t

be easy.


Among operators, there was variable awareness of the role of their product in the

region’s visitor attractions and of the potential for linkages, which reflected the

maturity of the destination. This could affect the cooperation between operators

and the marketing/branding of the tourism products.

8 . 5 M e T H O D O L O G I C A L C O N S I D e R A T I O N S

The selection of case studies depended on the potential to separate the economic

effects of concessioned tourism activity from the effects of tourism overall. This

was achieved for all three locations. The effects of concessioned tourism were

measurable in terms of their contribution to the regional tourism economy,

although there are many linkages between the non-concessioned commercial

activity in FNP and ATNP. It was more difficult to separate the social effects of

concessioned tourism from those of tourism overall.

A limiting factor when conducting business surveys is the sensitive nature of the

information required. When making economic impact assessments, the use of an

independent economist is essential, particularly as most operators are concerned

about how their turnover/output information may be used—for example, they

fear it may be used by DOC for auditing or compliance purposes (as opposed

to understanding the activity’s economic contribution). DOC, however, already

asks for information from the operators at the end of each year, and it is

recommended that this data collection and recording of the operator returns by

DOC be improved to help validate estimates.

Improved regional economic information is also important. This study was limited

by the fact that only two economists have prepared regional input–output tables

for New Zealand. Furthermore, there is some information available about tourism

at the RTO level, but this is aggregated from national-level information.

Decisions about which visits and spending should be counted need to take into

account the decision-making by the visitor. This means identifying the visitor’s

primary purpose for the trip to a region, which could affect (as it did in this

study) the importance of the concessioned product in attracting visitors to the

region, or the importance of the park to the visitor when deciding to come

to the region. economic impact estimates rely largely on accurate estimates

of the number and kinds of visitors and their spending patterns. Consistency

in approach, especially when estimating the number and types of visitors to

a park, is essential. For useful guidance on conceptual and practical issues

associated with developing comparable park use data collection, refer to

Stynes & Sun (2003) and Stynes (2005).


9. Recommendations

economic impact analysis is a valid approach to quantifying the relationship

between national parks and local economies. While this report’s case-study

approach has been useful in highlighting the measurability of the concessioned

tourism activity, it is recommended that DOC develops a systematic approach

to measuring the economic impacts of all tourism use of national parks. The

MGM2 approach employed by the American National Parks Services (see

section 2.5) may be suitable: it provides an efficient, nationwide and regular

survey of the economic effects of park-based tourism. A systematic methodology

will also provide opportunities for DOC, the Ministry of Tourism, Statistics

New Zealand, regional tourism organisations and local territorial authorities to

collaborate on identifying and gathering key datasets. Collaboration will mean

that no one party has to bear the full, rather high costs of conducting economic

impact assessments.

From a regional economic perspective, the most ‘valuable’ park visitor is one who

can be encouraged to spend money in the area adjacent to the park, particularly

in gateway communities. It is, therefore, important that a region’s and national

park’s marketing campaigns be aligned to encourage park visitors to stay in the

region before and/or after their park visit.

There is also greater potential for operators to cooperate within their region to

form stronger linkages between the tourism product inside the park and that

outside the park, to encourage longer visitor stays and increased spending. This

already happens in Te Anau (although this is limited by the community’s overall

dependence on the national park). There appears to be considerable competition

between the TNP operators, perhaps caused by varying interpretations of

‘local’. This study may help to highlight the significant economic contribution

that the local operators, that is, those operators from within the same region,

make together.

National parks operate in a regional context, and in the same way that many of

the opportunities and impacts on parks come from the region, opportunities

and impacts from the activities within the park also affect the surrounding

communities. It has been shown that gateway communities and regions around

the parks depend heavily on tourism. For that reason, there needs to be greater

integration of national park management plans with the community and economic

development and planning processes of the surrounding regions. examples

include: recognising the economic reliance of the gateway communities on the

national park; identifying opportunities for development outside the park to

service park visitors; reducing the significance of the park’s seasonality impact

on the region; allowing reasonable ‘lead in’ times for restrictions on activities,

especially where these are linked to icon attractions and international marketing;

and increasing understanding of the commercial operating environment of the

park’s concessioned businesses.


10. Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the Foundation for Research Science and Technology,

which provided the funding for this study (DOC Investigation Number 3617).

Gordon Cessford, Andrea Schollmann, Julie Warren, Bronek Kazmierow and DOC’s

concession staff were all instrumental in developing the research. In particular,

I would like to acknowledge Geoff Butcher, who prepared the economic impact

assessments that formed the greater part of this report. My appreciation also goes

out to all the operators who gave their time and information to this study.

11. References

Ap, J.; Crompton, J.L. 1993: Residents strategies for responding to tourism impacts. Journal of Travel

Research 32: 47–50.

APR Consultants 2005: eDANZ economic monitoring report March 2005 Quarter. Prepared for

Venture Southland, Rotorua.

Archer, B.; Cooper, C.; Ruhanen, L. 1998: The positive and negative impacts of tourism. Pp. 79–102

in Theobald, W.F. (ed.): Global tourism. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.

Booth, K.; Leppens, J. 2002: Rakiura National Park: a benchmark study of tourism and the Stewart

Island community prior to the creation of the National Park. Prepared for Southland

Conservancy, Department of Conservation, Invercargill (unpublished).

Butcher, G.V. 1985: Regional income, output and employment multipliers: their uses and estimates

of them. Cost benefit handbook Volume 4. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Wellington.

74 p.

Butcher, G.; Fairweather, J.R.; Simmons, D.G. 1998: The economic impact of tourism on Kaikoura.

Kaikoura Case Study Report No. 8/1998. Tourism Research and education Centre, Lincoln

university, Lincoln.

Butcher, G.; Fairweather, J.R.; Simmons, D.G. 2000: The economic impact of tourism on Rotorua.

Rotorua Case Study Report No. 17/2000. Tourism Research and education Centre, Lincoln

university, Lincoln.

Butcher, G.; McDonald, G.; Fairweather, J.R.; Simmons, D.G. 2001: The economic impact of tourism

on Westland District. Westland Case Study Report No 26/2001. Tourism Research and

education Centre, Lincoln university, Lincoln.

Butler, R.W. 1980: The concept of a tourism area cycle of evolution: implications for the management

of resources. Canadian Geographer 24: 5–12.

Butler, R.W.; Hall, C.M.; Jenkins, J. (eds) 1998: Tourism and recreation in rural areas. John Wiley and

Sons, Chichester. 261 p.

Cessford, G.; Thompson, A. 2002: Managing tourism in the New Zealand Protected Area System.

Parks 12(1): 26–36.

Clough, P.W.J.; Meister, A.D. 1989: Benefit assessment of recreational land: the Whakapapa

Area, Tongariro National Park. Natural Resource Economics Discussion Paper No. 13.

Department of Agricultural economics and Business, Centre for Agricultural Policy Studies,

Massey university, Palmerston North. 89 p.

Cocklin, C.; Flood, S. 1992: The socio-economic impacts of establishing marine reserves. Department

of Geography, university of Auckland, Auckland.


Cosslett, C.; Buchan, D.; Smith, J. 2004: Assessing the social effects of conservation on neighbouring

communities. Guidelines for Department of Conservation staff. Department of Conservation

Technical Series 29. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 68 p.

CReA (Centre for Regional economic Analysis) 2000: The contribution of the Parks and Wildlife

Service’s estate to the Tasmanian economy in 1989/99. Final Report to Department of

Primary Industries, Water and environment. university of Tasmania, Hobart.

Creswell, J.W. 2003: Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage

Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 296 p.

Davies, M. 2004: The Tongariro Crossing: a management challenge. Staircase Track Restoration

Workshop Introduction, March 2004. Department of Conservation, Ruapehu Area Office,

Mount Ruapehu.

Dixon, e. 1999: In the shadow of Ruapehu: community responses to adversity in tourism. A case

study of Ohakune. Pp. 146–159 in: Study Group on the Geography of Sustainable Tourism,

university of Otago, Centre for Tourism and International Geographical union. Centre for

Tourism, university of Otago, Dunedin.

DOC (Department of Conservation) 2002: Draft Fiordland National Park management plan. Southland

Conservancy, Department of Conservation, Invercargill.

DOC (Department of Conservation) 2003: Draft Tongariro National Park management plan. Tongariro/

Taupo Conservancy, Department of Conservation, Turangi.

DOC (Department of Conservation) 2005: Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2005. Department

of Conservation, Wellington. 160 p.

DOC (Department of Conservation) 2007: Fiordland National Park management plan. Southland

Conservancy, Department of Conservation, Invercargill. 448 p.

eadington, W.R.; Redman, M. 1991: economics and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18:

41–56.

eagles, P.F.J.; McCool, S.F. 2002: Tourism in national parks and protected areas: planning and

management. CABI, Wallingford. 320 p.

eijgelaar, e.; van Poelgeest, S. 2001: Socio-economic impacts of the designation of Te Wahipounamu–

South West New Zealand World Heritage Area on neighbouring communities. unpublished

BSc Honours thesis, Larenstein International Agricultural College, Velp, The Netherlands.

evans, T.R. 1993: Residents’ perceptions of tourism in selected New Zealand communities: a

segmentation study. unpublished MSc thesis, Department of Commerce, university of

Otago, Dunedin.

Frechtling, D.C. 1994a: Assessing the economic impacts of travel and tourism—introduction to travel

economic impact estimation. Pp. 359–365 in Ritchie, J.R.B.; Goeldner, C.R. (eds): Travel,

tourism and hospitality research. John Wiley, New york.

Frechtling, D.C. 1994b: Assessing the impacts of travel and tourism—measuring economic benefits.

Pp. 367–391 in Ritchie, J.R.B.; Goeldner, C.R. (eds): Travel, tourism and hospitality research.

John Wiley, New york.

Frechtling, D.C. 1994c: Assessing the impacts of travel and tourism—measuring economic costs.

Pp. 394–402 in Ritchie, J.R.B.; Goeldner, C.R. (eds): Travel, tourism and hospitality research.

John Wiley, New york.

Garland, R. 1984: New Zealand hosts and guests: a study on the social impact of tourism.

Massey University Market Research Centre Research Report No. 39. Massey university,

Palmerston North.

Gough, G.D.; Ball, R.J. 1995: The contribution of conservation lands to the west coast regional

economy. Centre for Resource Management Information Paper 52. Lincoln university,

Lincoln. 59 p.

Hall, C.M.; Jenkins, J.M. 1997: The policy dimension of rural tourism and recreation. Pp. 19–42 in

Butler, R.W.; Hall, C.M.; Jenkins, J. (eds): Tourism and recreation in rural areas. John Wiley

and Sons, Chichester.


Hasse, J. 2001: Stakeholder perceptions of tourism development in Marahau/New Zealand: a role for

participatory approaches and GIS. unpublished PhD thesis, Victoria university of Wellington,

Wellington.

Horn, C.; Simmons, D. 2002: Community adaptations to tourism. Tourism Management 23(2):

133–143.

Horn, C.; Simmons, D.G.; Fairweather, J.R. 1998: evolution and change in Kaikoura: responses to

tourism development. Tourism Research and education Centre (TReC) report 6, Tourism

Research and education Centre, Lincoln university, Lincoln.

Horn, C.; Simmons, D.G.; Fairweather, J.R. 2000: evolving community response to tourism and

change in Rotorua. Rotorua Case Study Report No 14/2000. Tourism Research and education

Centre, Lincoln university, Lincoln. 141 p.

Howe, J.; McMahon, e.; Propst, L. 1997: Balancing nature and commerce in gateway communities.

Island Press, Washington, DC. 165 p.

Kerr, G.N.; Sharp, B.M.; Gough, J.D. 1986: economic benefits of Mt Cook National Park. Centre for

Resource Management, university of Canterbury and Lincoln College, Lincoln. 158 p.

Kerr, N. 1998: The impacts of tourism in remote areas: the case of Haast and Collingwood. unpublished

Masters thesis (Geography), university of Canterbury, Christchurch.

Lane, B. 1994: What is rural tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2(1): 7–21.

Latitude Nelson 2003: Tourism Nelson Tasman Ltd Annual Report 2003. Latitude Nelson, Nelson.

Latitude Nelson 2004a: Key facts—characteristics of tourism in Nelson Tasman Region. Tourism

Planning Conference 10/11 August 2004, Nelson Tasman Region.

Latitude Nelson 2004b: Nelson Tasman Region Trade Directory, 2004. Latitude Nelson, Nelson.

Latitude Nelson 2004c: Tourism Nelson Tasman Ltd Annual Report 2004. Latitude Nelson, Nelson.

Lawson, R.W.; Williams, J.; young, T.; Cossens, J. 1998: A comparison of residents’ attitudes towards

tourism in 10 New Zealand destinations. Tourism Management 19(3): 247–256.

Machlis, G.e.; Field, D.R. 2000: National parks and rural development—practice and policy in the

united States. Island Press, Washington, DC. 324 p.

Mason, P.; Cheyne, J. 2000: Residents’ attitudes to proposed tourism development. Annals of

Tourism Research 27(2): 391–441.

Minerbi, L. 1992: Impacts of tourism development in Pacific Islands. Greenpeace Pacific Campaign.

Greenpeace International, San Francisco. 76 p.

Moisey, R. 2002: The economics of tourism in national parks and protected areas. In eagles, P.F.J.;

McCool, S.F. (eds): Tourism in national parks and protected areas: planning and management.

CABI, Wallingford.

Moran, D.; Simmons, D.G.; Fairweather, J.R. 2001: evolving community perceptions of tourism

in Westland. Westland Case Study Report No 24/2001. Tourism Recreation Research and

education Centre, Lincoln university, Lincoln. 105 p.

NCC (Nelson City Council) 2004: About Nelson. www.nelsoncitycouncil.co.nz/aboutnelson/

nelsoninfocus/tourism.htm (viewed 13 Aug 2004).

NPPA (National Park Progressive Association) 2004: Strategy for the development of National Park

Village, 08.02.2004. www.snow.co.nz/clients/nationalpark/Newsletters/showNewsletter.

asp?company (viewed 24 July 2004).

NPWS (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service) 1998: The contribution of Coolah

Tops National Park to regional economic development: technical report. economics and

Regulatory Reform unit, environmental Policy Division. New South Wales National Parks and

Wildlife Service, Hurstville. 35 p.

NPWS (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service) 1999a: The contribution of Montague

Island Nature Reserve to regional economic development: technical report. economics and

Regulatory Reform unit, environmental Policy Division, New South Wales National Parks and

Wildlife Service, Hurstville. 47 p.


NPWS (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service) 1999b: The contribution of national

parks to sustainable rural and regional economic development: technical report. economics

and Regulatory Reform unit, New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.

20 p.

NPWS (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service) 2000: The contribution of

Warrumbungle National Park to regional economic development: technical report.

Conservation economics unit, New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service,

Hurstville. 62 p.

NPWS (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service) 2001: The contribution of Stuart

National Park, Kinchega National Park and Mutawintji National Park to regional economic

development: technical report. Conservation economics unit, New South Wales National

Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville. 75 p.

NPWS (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service) 2002: The economic value of

recreational use in protected areas. Collected studies from New South Wales. Conservation

economics unit, New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville. 34 p.

OeCD (Organisation for economic Cooperation and Development) 1994: Tourism strategies and

rural development. OeCD, Paris. 94 p.

Page, S.J.; Getz, D. 1997: The business of rural tourism: international perspectives. Pp. 3–37 in

Page, S.J.; Getz, D. (eds): The business of rural tourism—international perspectives. Thomson

Business Press, Oxford.

Parr, D. 2000: Management practice for allocation of recreation concessions. Science and Research

Internal Report 184. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 33 p.

Phillips, A. (ed.) 2002: Sustainable tourism in protected areas—guidelines for planning and

management. World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). Best Practice Protected

Area Guidelines Series No. 8. united Nations environment Programme, World Tourism

Organisation and IuCN—The World Conservation union, Switzerland. 183 p.

RDC (Ruapehu District Council) 2001: Strategic Plan review. Ruapehu District Council,

Taumaranui.

RDC (Ruapehu District Council) 2003: economic analysis of the Ruapehu District, six months ending

December 2002. Ruapehu District Council, Taumaranui.

Ruapehu Bulletin 2004: A good year for Ruapehu. Ruapehu Bulletin 21(163): 1.

SGL Consulting Group 2005: Statistical profile of visitors to Southland, New Zealand, on-site visitor

survey. Prepared for Venture Southland, January 2005.

Snowdon, P.; Slee, B.; Farr, H. 2000: The economic impacts of different types of tourism in upland and

mountain areas. Pp. 137–156 in Godde, P.M.; Price, M.F.; Zimmerman, F.M. (eds): Tourism

and development in mountain regions. CABI Publishing, Oxford.

Statistics New Zealand 2004: National Park community profile. www.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/

web/CommProfiles.nsf/FindInfobyArea/532602-au (viewed 30 July 2009).

Stephens, R.J.; Wells, C. 1983: The regional economic and social impact of Punakaiki National Park.

Victoria university of Wellington, Wellington.

Stuart P.; Pearce D.; Weaver A. 2005: Tourism distribution channels in peripheral regions: the case

of Southland, New Zealand. Tourism Geographies 7(3): 235–256.

Stynes, D.J. 1997: economic impacts of tourism. www.msu.edu/course/prr/840/econimpact/pdf/

ecimpvol1.pdf (viewed 23 June 2010).

Stynes, D.J. 2005: economic significance of recreational uses of national parks and other Public lands.

Social Science Research Review 5(1): 1–36.

Stynes, D.; Sun, y. 2003: economic impacts of national park visitor spending on gateway communities.

Systemwide estimates for 2001. Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources,

Michigan State university, east Lansing.

Taumaranui County Council 1985: National Park Village future prospects: tourist development or

not? Report compiled by Taumaranui County Council, July 1985, Taumaranui.


Taylor, C.N.; Bryan, C.H.; Goodrich, C.G. 2004: Social assessment: theory, process and techniques.

3rd edition. Social ecology Press, Middleton, WI. 194 p.

Taylor, C.N.; Gough, J.; Warren, J.; McClintock, W. 1991: Social and economic impacts of Kahurangi

National Park. Science for Conservation 119. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

62 p.

TDC (Tasman District Council) 2001: On the beach—how the future management of the Abel Tasman

foreshore is shaping up. Newsline The Mag 27, published by TDC, September 2001.

Tolisano, J. 2000: Bridging culture and nature: an international perspective to national parks and

rural development. Pp. 244–265 in Machlis, G.e.; Field, D.R. (eds): National parks and rural

development—practice and policy in the united States. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Tourism Resource Consultants 2005: Southland tourism strategy 2005–2015. Commissioned

by Venture Southland, June 2005, Southland. 72 p. www.southlandnz.com/Portals/0/

Documents/Visit/SouthlandTourismStrategy.pdf (viewed 23 June 2010).

TRCNZ (Tourism Research Council New Zealand) 2003: New Zealand regional tourism forecasts

2004—2010. www.trcnz.govt.nz/Data--Analysis/Forecasts/Forecast-Tourism-to-NZ-Regions-/

(viewed 30 July 2009).

TRI (Tourism Research Institute) 2000: The local economic impact of the Mt Hutt ski area.

Ski Areas Association of New Zealand (SAANZ) Research Report, March 2000. Tourism

Research Institute.

TRI (New Zealand Tourism Research Institute) 2002: Mount Ruapehu ski fields: an economic

impact study. A study for the Ski Areas Association of New Zealand. Auckland university of

Technology, Auckland. 45 p.

TRReC (Tourism Recreation Research and education Centre) 2004: Tourism planning toolkit for

local government. www.tourism.govt.nz/Our-Work/Local-Government-/Tourism-Planning-

Toolkit/ (viewed 30 July 2009).

Venture Southland 2005: Economic Bulletin 2, June 2005.

Warren, J.A.N.; Taylor, C.N. 1999: Developing rural tourism in New Zealand. Centre for Research,

evaluation and Social Assessment, Wellington. 95 p.

Williams, J.; Lawson, R. 2001: Community issues and resident opinions of tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research 28(2): 269–290.

yin, R.K. 1994: Case study research design and methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series

Volume 5. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 60 p.


12. Glossary

Direct economic impact Direct impact arising from the initial spending by

visitors on the goods and services they want to consume. Direct employment is

of people who produce and sell goods and services directly to tourists. Direct

output is the value of purchases made by tourists. Direct value added is the value

added in those businesses that sell directly to tourists.

Downstream impacts/effects Impacts that are not driven by an activity’s

demand for extra inputs, but that might arise as a result of a particular activity.

An example in concessioned tourism would be where the development of guided

walking led to people staying longer in the district and hence to an increased

demand by visitors for accommodation and food. The accommodation and food

are not inputs into the guided walk and hence are not an indirect or induced

effect of the walk; they are a downstream effect.

Employment Work done by employees and self-employed persons, measured

in Full-Time equivalent jobs (FTes). A person working part time all year is deemed

to be equivalent to 0.5 FTes. Where it was apparent that the part-time work was

quite limited, and information was available on the approximate hours worked

per week, the FTes of a part-time job were based on 35 hours per week per FTe.

Hence, 10 hours per week is 0.3 FTes. Where work was seasonal, the conversion

to FTes was based on 12 months work per year. So a seasonal worker working

full-time for 6 months per year is 0.5 FTes, and a part-time seasonal worker

working 10 hours per week for 4 months is 0.1 FTes.

Flow-on effects (upstream impacts) The sum of indirect and induced

effects.

Gross economic impact The dollars-based effect before the negative effects

on other businesses from which the concession has attracted visitor spending

are deducted.

Household income The gross income of a household, including the income

of self-employed persons. There is sometimes considerable uncertainty about

the proportion of business income that goes to households, especially for small

businesses. In assessing this proportion, dividends and interest payments to local

householders have been excluded. Conceptually, they should be included, but

it is difficult to be clear what proportions of these items have gone to local

households. When estimating indirect economic impacts, one needs to know the

increase in household income that occurs in a region and how it will be spent.

When owners of business capital lived outside the district, dividends and interest

did not form part of the district household income. even where the owners did

live in the district, profits that were not used for household spending did not

lead to economic impacts.26

26 Profits may be invested back into the district, but the impacts of this investment were excluded on

the grounds that the investment could have been financed by borrowing and hence would not have

been dependent on the earlier profits.


Indirect economic impacts/effects Indirect impacts arise from increased

spending by businesses as they buy additional inputs so that they can increase

production to meet visitor demand. This indirect effect can be envisaged as an

expanding ripple effect. A tourist buys food and drink at a café. The café has

to employ more staff and buy more bread, so the bakery output expands. The

bakery has to employ more staff and buy more electricity, so the power company

increases its output. The power company has to increase its maintenance, so it

employs another person and spends more on a vehicle for that person. All the

increased employment, output and value added (apart from that at the café) are

the indirect effect. Note that indirect effects include only ‘upstream’ effects (via

buying more inputs) but do not include any stimulated development downstream.

So, although an expansion of ‘tourism activities’ may lead to more tourists and

hence an expansion of accommodation, the extra accommodation is not included

as a flow-on effect of the activity, and hence is not included in the multiplier.

Induced economic impacts The result of increased household income being

spent, leading to a further ripple effect of increased employment, output and

income.

Multipliers Type 1: the ratio of (direct + indirect) impacts to direct impacts;

Type II: the ratio of (direct + indirect + induced) impacts to direct impacts.

Type II multipliers include the impact of household spending and hence will

always be greater than Type I multipliers. Both multipliers will always be greater

than 1. Note that downstream effects (whether positive or negative) are not

included in the multiplier, and must be calculated separately.

Net economic impact The impact of a concession after deducting the effects

of transfers from other businesses and after taking into account any downstream

effects caused by a change in the duration of stay (and so level of expenditure)

in the district associated with the existence of the concession.

Output The value of sales by a business. In the case of wholesale and retail

trade, it is the total value of turnover (and not simply the gross margin).27

Total economic impacts Type I: the sum of the direct and indirect impacts;

Type II: the sum of direct, indirect and induced impacts.

Transfer effects When turnover or some other economic feature is transferred

from one business to another with no net impacts.

Value added Includes household income (wages and salaries and self-employed

income) and returns to capital (including interest, depreciation and profits),

as well as all direct and indirect taxes. Value added is conceptually the same

as business and personal income. In accounting terms, it is business earnings

(before interest, tax and depreciation) plus wages and salaries.

27 Care has to be taken in combining retail sales figures with employment per $million of output from

input–output tables. In these tables, output is generally defined as gross margin. By contrast, business

statistics figures usually give employment per $million of turnover.


Appendix 1

e x A M P L e O F A N O P e R A T O R I N T e R V I e W S C H e D u L e

Date: ___________

Operating Name of Business: ____________________________________________________

Business Location: _____________________________________________________________

Name of Interviewee: ____________________________________________________________

Position of Interviewee: __________________________________________________________

Interview Number: ______________________________________________________________

SECTION 1: Tourism products, including those requiring (and not requiring) a DOC concession

In this first section, I am interested in learning about your business and in the tourism products or services you provide in the

Nelson-Tasman region, including those requiring a DOC concession.

1. What year did your business begin?

2. What year did you take over?

3. Please tell me about the types of tourism products or services you provide in the region. Discussing each tourism

product in turn, what is the tourism product, does it require a concession, when was this product introduced, and where

are these tourism products or services mainly located.

a) Which tourism

products and services do you provide?

b) Does this

product require a DOC concession?

c) Which year was

this product introduced?

d) Where is this tourism activity

mainly located?

1.

2.

3.

4.


5.

6.

7.

8.

4. What other tourism products or services do you provide outside of this region?

a) Tourism products and services

b) Does this require a DOC concession

c) Principal location/s

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

5. Where do the owners of this tourism business principally reside?

In Marahau

Elsewhere in Nelson–Tasman region

Elsewhere in New Zealand

Internationally

6. What are your reasons for being in the tourism industry?

7. Which of these is your main reason?

8. What industry did you work in and in which location before you became involved in this tourism business?

8a. Industry _____________________________

8b. Location _____________________________


SECTION 2: Employment and income generation

This section asks about employment generation and income. I am interested in details about your tourism business overall in the

Nelson–Tasman region as well as your concession-based business. If you find it difficult to separate business details associated

with local concessions from overall tourism business details, please give your best estimate.

9. I want to ask you about the number of people who worked in your tourism business for the last financial year for the

high and the low season. Please include owner-operators and permanent staff.

9a. Which months do you consider constitute the high or busy season? ___________________

9b. How many full-time male and female staff do you employ during the busy season?

(M) ______ (F) ______

9c. How many part-time male and female staff do you have?

(M) ______ (F) ______

9d. How many Full Time Equivalent staff do you employ in the busy season? _________

9e. Which months do you consider constitute the low or quiet season? ___________________

9f. How many full-time male and female staff do you employ during the quiet season?

(M) ______ (F) ______

9g. How many part-time male and female staff do you employ during the quiet season?

(M) ______ (F) ______

9h. How many Full Time Equivalent staff do you employ in the quiet seasons? _________

10. What percentage of staff time is dedicated to the concession-based product/s?

10a. Busy season _________%

10b. Quiet season _________%

11. What was your wages bill (including your own drawings) for the most recent financial year?

$ ______________

Not available

Refused


12a. How do you expect the number of people employed in your business to change in the next 2 years?

Increase

Decrease

No change

Don’t know

12b. Please explain why you anticipate this change:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

13a. Do you employ members of the local permanent population?

Yes (go to b)

No (go to c)

13b. If yes, are there any specific reasons why you employ locals?

13c. If no, are there any specific reasons why you do not employ locals?

14a. Are you able to recruit staff with the skills your business needs?

Yes

No

14b. If yes, what skills have been the most difficult to obtain?

The next couple of questions are about business turnover and income.

15. What was you total tourism turnover for the last financial year?

$____________________

Not available

Refused

16. What percentage of your total turnover is attributable to your concession product/s?

_________%


17. Which one of your concession-based products generates the best profit?

18. Were you able to take personal drawings from the business in 2002/03?

Yes

No

If yes, how much did you draw in total in 2002/03?

$____________

Not available

Refused

19. From what other sources do you derive income?

Other business

Paid employment

Income support (e.g. super, etc.)

Private income (e.g. shares, dividends)

Other (please specify) ___________________________________________________

SECTION 3: Expenditure

We would like to estimate the flow on effects of your business on the rest of the regional economy.

We have employed an independent economist, Geoff Butcher, to do this. Geoff has worked extensively in calculating economic

impacts of tourism. He has built up a regional economic model to do this, but he wants to get some additional data for his model

about the income and expenditure patterns of the concessions businesses themselves (rather than averages for all recreation—

which includes things such as horse racing and libraries).

He would need to sit down with you for half an hour and go through your last available set of annual accounts to identify what

you buy and where you buy it from. The information will be combined with other industry data and then used to estimate industry

multipliers for the concessions industry.

This information will be confidential to Geoff only, and will not be released to any other party. The information gathered may be

used in reports and presentations but any data that could possibly identify an operator will not be reported.

Would you be happy to sit down with Geoff and give him this data?

Yes

No

He will give you back the estimated multipliers for your business as well as the averages for the entire concessions industry

when this is published.


SECTION 4: Visitors and what attracts them

This section asks about the visitors who purchase your concession-based products, and what attracts them.

20. In the last financial year, what were your total visitor numbers for all your tourism product/s?

___________ Do not know Refused

21. What proportion of these visitors were international? _________%

22. In the last financial year, what were your total visitor numbers for your tourism product/s requiring a DOC concession?

___________ Do not know Refused

23. What proportion of these concession-based visitors were international? _______%

24. For your concession-based products, what were the three most common countries of origin, in order of visitor numbers?

1. __________________ 2. ___________________ 3. ___________________

25. Has there been any change in the mix of visitors to your concession-based product/s in the last 2 years?

Yes

No

If yes, please describe: ________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

26. What features of your concession-based product most attract your visitors?

27. How important do you think the type of concession-based product you provide is for attracting visitors to the region in

general?

Very important

Important

Not important


SECTION 5: The benefits and downsides of tourism activity

In this section I am interested in your views about the effects that concessions-based tourism has on local communities. For the

following questions, please think of Marahau as a local community, and effects concession businesses may have on its

economy, community, infrastructure, other visitors, and the environment.

28. What benefits do concession businesses specifically bring to the local community?

29. Which of these benefits are also provided by non-concession tourism businesses?

____________ ___________________________________________________________

30. What downsides do concession businesses specifically have on the local community?

____________ ___________________________________________________________

31. Which of these downsides are also caused by non-concession tourism businesses?

SECTION 6: Tourism growth and opportunities for the future

In this section, I am interested in your views on tourism growth and future opportunities in Marahau for tourism in general and

concessions-based tourism.

32. How do you think the number of tourists in Marahau will change over the next 5 years?

Decrease

Increase

Stay pretty much the same

33. What do you see as the main factors affecting tourism growth in the area?


34. Do you think current concession-based tourism products will have a specific effect on tourism growth in the area?

Yes

No

Don’t know

If yes, what effects are these: ________________________________________________

35. What are the main concession-based products that could be developed in the area?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

___

36. Are there barriers to people taking advantage of these concession-based opportunities?

Yes

No

If yes, please describe ______________________________________________________

37. Local Government New Zealand are interested in your views on funding of core facilities, such as public facilities and

infrastructure. What are your views on visitors paying for public facilities or targeted tourism rates to contribute to

infrastructure such as toilets, water, sewerage, etc.?

38. We are at the end of the interview—do you have any other comments?

THANK YOU very much for your cooperation.


Appendix 2

e x A M P L e O F A V I S I T O R S u R V e y

Visitor Survey

Tongariro National Park Concession Client Survey

Date: Interviewer: Case-Study Area: Operator:

Number:

Hi, my name is _______ and I’m doing a survey about businesses which operate in national parks for the

Department of Conservation. To do this, we need to find out something about the people who use these

businesses. I have a questionnaire which takes just a few minutes to complete. Would you mind answering

some questions about your visit to Tongariro National Park for me? All your answers will be completely

confidential.

Check: Are they staying / have stayed a night at this accommodation provider? If yes, proceed to Q1. If no,

close interview. If a group, choose person 15 years or over with next birthday.

1. Where do you normally live? Please show the map of the Ruapehu/Taupo Districts

1 Ruapehu/Taupo Districts

4 Elsewhere in New Zealand

5 Overseas

2. What is the main activity you are doing with this operator?

_____________________________________________________________________

3. Who are you doing this activity with? Precoded. Do not show answers. Please tick one box only.

1 Visiting alone 5 Friends/family/partner mix

2 Partner/spouse 6 Business associates

3 Friends 7 Special interest group

4 Family 8 Other (specify) _______________________

4. How many people are in your group, including yourself? _______________ people


For the following questions, please show the interviewee the map of the Ruapehu/Taupo Districts.

5. How many nights have you been in the Ruapehu/Taupo Districts so far? If you have been in the

Ruapehu/Taupo Districts for less than 24 hours, please provide number of hours.

a. ___________ nights b. ___________ hours

6. How many nights in total do you expect to stay in the Ruapehu/Taupo Districts? If you expect to

stay in the Ruapehu/Taupo Districts for less than 24 hours, please provide number of hours.

a. ___________ nights b. ___________ hours

7. What is your main form of accommodation while you are in the Ruapehu/Taupo Districts?

Precoded. Do not show answers. Please tick one box only.

1 Motel, hotel, cabin, B&B, lodge, backpackers, rented home

2 Public campground

3 Owned seasonal home

4 Stay with friends or relatives in the area

5 DOC campground or hut

6 Other (please specify) ________________________

8. Please give your best estimate of the expenditure of your whole group in the 24 hours before your

group started this activity. If your group has been in the region less than 24 hours, give expenditure

so far plus an estimate of accommodation costs for your group’s first night in the Ruapehu/Taupo

Districts.

Type of Spending What is the amount spent by your whole group in the 24 hours before your group started this activity in NZ$

a. Accommodation $ b. is this an estimate 1Yes / 2No

c. Transport / fuel costs $

d. Food / drink at eating out places $

e. Retail (groceries, souvenirs, clothes, etc.) $

f. Entertainment, activities, attractions $

g. Other (please specify) ______________ $


9. Was the type of service provided by this operator?

1 The primary purpose of your trip to the Ruapehu/Taupo Districts

2 One of several reasons for your trip to the Ruapehu/Taupo Districts

3 Not an important reason for your trip to the Ruapehu/Taupo Districts

10. If this type of service was not here, would you have still come to the Ruapehu/Taupo Districts?

1 Yes (go to question 11)

2 No (go to question 17)

3 Maybe (go to question 11)

11. Would you have stayed the same number of nights in the Ruapehu/Taupo Districts as you currently

intend to?



12. How many fewer nights or extra nights would you have stayed in the Ruapehu/Taupo Districts?

a. ______ fewer nights OR b. ______ extra nights

You have been thinking about the Ruapehu/Taupo Districts. The next questions are about the Tongariro

National Park only. Please look at the map to see the Tongariro National Park.

13. How many nights have you spent or do you intend to spend in Tongariro National Park on this trip?

___________ nights

14. If the type of service you have used today was not available, would you still have come to

Tongariro National Park?



3 Maybe (go to question 15)

15. Would you have stayed the same number of nights in Tongariro National Park?




16. How many fewer or extra nights would you have stayed in Tongariro National Park?

a. _____ fewer nights OR b. _____ extra nights

17. What are your reasons for using a commercial operator?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

18. Which of these reasons is your main reason?

_____________________________________________________________________

19. If you had the opportunity, would you use this operator again?

1 Yes

2 No

20. What was the main source of information you used to find out about this service? Precoded. Do not

show answers. Please tick only one box.

1 Newspaper, books, magazines 6 Visitor centres

2 Pamphlets, posters 7 Someone told me

3 Radio 8 Used operator before

4 Internet/web 9 Other (specify)

5 Films, television 10 Have not seen any information

Thank you very much for your time today. Enjoy the rest of your holiday


Appendix 3

S u G G e S T e D I N D I C A T O R S T O M e A S u R e S O C I O - e C O N O M I C e F F e C T S

SOCIO-eCONOMIC INDICATOR DATA SOuRCe AND MeTHOD

Tourist

Numbers Visitor survey, DOC concession returns,

Total number of tourist visits/visitors annually operator survey

Number of park visits/visitors

Number of concession visitors

Proportion of day visits

Visitor characteristics Visitor survey, Ministry of Tourism data,

Nationality / place of residence RTO data, previous studies

Personal profile characteristics

Day/overnight proportion of park users

Domestic/international

Visit characteristics Visitor survey

Visit group type and size

Main reason for visit

Length of stay in park/region

National park influence on visit

Concessioned activity influence on visit

Source of information

use of tracks (day/overnight)

Activities undertaken

use of facilities/services

Accommodation used

used operator before

Visitor expenditure Visitor survey

Average daily expenditure in park

Average daily expenditure in region

Total visitor expenditure

Tourism business

Business operation Operator survey, interviews with DOC

employment (FTe) by type and industry managers, concession

Salary/wages by type returns

Turnover

Visitor numbers

Proportion of business due to concessioned product

(turnover, employment and visitor numbers)

expected growth

Continued on next page


Appendix 3—continued

SOCIO-eCONOMIC INDICATOR DATA SOuRCe AND MeTHOD

Involvement in tourism planning Operator survey, interview with DOC

Interest of operators and tourism industry managers

Preferred form of involvement

Participation in concession workshops

Tourism inventory DOC statistics, operator survey

Number of providers by type

Number of concessions held by businesses in

gateway community/region

Community lifestyle

Demographic profile Residents’ survey, census

Number of residents

Age, gender, ethnicity of residents

Length of residence

Income and employment Residents’ survey, census

employment (by sector)—5 years ago / current

Personal income

Regional planning and management

Integration Stakeholder survey, demonstration of

Involvement by industry and community in planning integration between community plans

(regional/district plans, tourism, conservation) and national park management plans

Benefits from tourism (personal, community,

conservation)

What effect does concession-based tourism have on communities and economies?

Concessioned tourism activity was measured during 2004–2005 in three case-study areas: Tongariro, Abel Tasman and Fiordland National Parks. This activity not only contributed directly to the economy, but was also important to employment in the region. The magnitude of the effect of the concessioned product on the visitor itinerary was influenced by the composition of the gateway community, features of the region’s tourism sector, park management, visitor characteristics and features of the concessioned product. Recommendations are made for encouraging longer visitor stays and increased spending in the wider region.

Wouters, M. 2011: Socio-economic effects of concession-based tourism in New Zealand’s national parks. Science for Conservation 309. 90 p.

more businesses being 10 years or younger. The …...Science for Conservation 309 41 more businesses...

Documents

Transcript of more businesses being 10 years or younger. The …...Science for Conservation 309 41 more businesses...